This is
a proceeding under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the
Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. Section
1631(c)(3)of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §1383(c)(3), provides
that “[t]he final determination of the Commissioner . .
. shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section
205(g) [42 U.S.C. § 405(g)] to the same extent as the
Commissioner's final determination under section
205.”

Plaintiff
argues that the administrative law judge erred by (1) failing
to find that plaintiff's impairments met or medically
equaled Listing 112.11 and (2) inappropriately weighing the
evidence by (a) failing to give controlling weight to Latha
Venkatesh, M.D.; (b) failing to mention the opinion of Tamera
Bryant, plaintiff's kindergarten teacher; and (c) giving
controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Isenberg who did not
treat plaintiff. I find that there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the ALJ's decision. Therefore,
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be denied
and the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.

I.
BACKGROUND

On July
24, 2013, plaintiff's mother, acting on plaintiff's
behalf, protectively filed an application for child's
supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits
based on disability under Title XVI, alleging disability
beginning June 1, 2013, due to attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The application
was denied initially on September 30, 2013. On November 19,
2014, Administrative Law Judge George Bock held a hearing.
The ALJ found on December 23, 2014, that plaintiff is not
disabled. On January 16, 2016, the Appeals Council denied
plaintiff's request for review. Therefore, the opinion of
the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.

II.
STANDARD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

The
standard of appellate review of the Commissioner's
decision is limited to a determination of whether the
decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record
as a whole. Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th
Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence is less than a
preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion.
Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626, 631 (8th Cir.
2008). Evidence that both supports and detracts from the
Commissioner's decision should be considered, and an
administrative decision is not subject to reversal simply
because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.
Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d at 935 (citing
Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 589 (8th Cir.
2004)). A court should disturb the ALJ's decision only if
it falls outside the available “zone of choice, ”
and a decision is not outside that zone of choice simply
because the court may have reached a different conclusion had
the court been the fact finder in the first instance.
Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir.
2006) (citations omitted). The Eighth Circuit has further
noted that a court should “defer heavily to the
findings and conclusions of the SSA.” Howard v.
Massanari, 255 F.3d 577, 581 (8th Cir. 2001).

An
individual under the age of 18 will be considered disabled if
he has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment
that results in marked and severe functional limitations, and
that can be expected to result in death or which has lasted
or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not
less than 12 months. Notwithstanding, no individual under the
age of 18 who engages in substantial gainful activity may be
considered to be disabled. The Social Security Administration
has established a three-step sequential evaluation process to
determine whether an individual under the age of 18 is
disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a).

1. Is
the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity?

Yes =
Not disabled.

No = Go
to next step.

2. Does
the claimant have a medically determinable impairment or
combination of impairments that is severe?

No =
Not disabled.

Yes =
Go to next step.

3. Does
the claimant have an impairment or combination of impairments
that meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing or
that functionally equals the listings and has or is expected
to last at least 12 months?

Yes =
Disabled.

No =
Not disabled.

Whether
an impairment or combination of impairments functionally
equals the listings depends on how appropriately,
effectively, and independently the claimant performs
activities in six domains -- (1) acquiring and using
information, (2) attending and completing tasks, (3)
interacting and relating with others, (4) moving about and
manipulating objects, (5) caring for himself, and (6) health
and physical well-being -- as compared to other children of
the same age who do not have impairments. To functionally
equal the listings, the claimant's impairment or
combination of impairments must result in
“marked” limitations in two domains of
functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one
domain of functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d).

A child
has an “extreme” limitation in a domain when his
impairment interferes “very seriously” with his
ability to initiate, sustain, or complete activities
independently. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(3). A child's
day-to-day functioning may be “very seriously”
limited when his impairment limits only one activity or when
the interactive and cumulative affects of his impairment
limit several activities. An “extreme limitation”
also means:

1. A limitation that is “more than marked.”

2. The equivalent of functioning that would be expected on
standardized testing with scores that are at least three
standard deviations below the mean.

3. A valid score that is three standard deviations or more
below the mean on a comprehensive standardized test designed
to measure ability or functioning in that domain, and his
day-to-day functioning in domain-related activities is
consistent with that score.

4. For the domain of health and physical well-being, episodes
of illness or exacerbations that result in significant,
documented symptoms or signs substantially in excess of the
requirements for showing a “marked” limitation.

A child
has a “marked” limitation in a domain when his
impairment “interferes seriously” with the
ability to initiate, sustain, or complete activities
independently. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2). A child's
day-to-day functioning may be “seriously limited”
when the impairment limits only one activity or when the
interactive and cumulative affects of the impairment limit
several activities. A “marked” limitation also
means:

1. A limitation that is “more than moderate” but
“less than extreme.”

2. The equivalent of functioning that would be expected on
standardized testing with scores that are at least two, but
less than three, standard deviations below the mean.

3. A valid score that is two standard deviations or more
below the mean, but less than three standard deviations, on a
comprehensive standardized test designed to measure ability
or functioning in that domain, and his day-to-day functioning
in domain-related activities is consistent with that score.

4. For the domain of health and physical well-being, frequent
episodes of illnesses because of the impairment or frequent
exacerbations of the impairment that result in significant,
documented symptoms or signs that occur (1) on an average of
three times a year or once every four months, each lasting
two weeks or more, (2) more often than three times a year or
once every four months but lasting longer than two weeks, if
the overall affect (based on the length of the episode or its
frequency) is equivalent in severity.

III.
THE RECORD

The
record consists of the testimony of plaintiff's mother in
addition to documentary evidence admitted at the hearing.

A.
SUMMARY OF RECORDS

1.
Administrative Records

a.
Child Supplemental Questionnaire

On
September 11, 2013, plaintiff's mother, Ms. Deboe,
completed this form and reported that plaintiff is able to
play video games and puzzles or use a computer for ten
minutes at a time (Tr. at 143-145). If plaintiff goes out
shopping, to eat, or to special events with his mother, he
has to go right after his early morning medicine. She has to
talk him through the whole outing to make sure he does not
get out of hand. Plaintiff does not listen when he is told to
do something, he throws temper tantrums, he will not sit
still, he talks back, and he fights. Plaintiff has not
visited the school nurse because of his impairment. His
school has not recommended that he participate in summer
school.

b.
Letter from plaintiff's sister

In a
letter dated only “11/14” plaintiff's sister,
Tanisha Deboe, wrote that plaintiff is very hyper, it is hard
to keep him calm, she gets very frustrated with him at times
due to his inability to sit still, and he has a temper -- if
he does not get his way, he screams as loud as he can, kicks,
and has outbursts (Tr. at 198). The age of plaintiff's
sister Tanisha is unknown.

2.
School Records.

Plaintiff's
elementary school cumulative record shows that from 2011
through 2012 (age 3 through 4), his class work evaluation in
every subject was 2 out of 5 with 5 being the highest (Tr. at
160). He was promoted to “P4.” During the
academic year 2012 through 2013 (age 4 through 5), his class
work in every subject was 3 out of 5 with 5 being the
highest. He was promoted to kindergarten.

On May
29, 2013 (prior to plaintiff's alleged onset date), when
plaintiff was 5 years old and finishing grade “P4,
” his report card showed that he was progressing
satisfactorily in the following:

Sings/plays online and with others within varied styles and
musical forms

Moves to, describes, analyzes or discusses music

Described functions of music and musicians in varied
settings/cultures

Physical education

Demonstrates cooperation with partners and small groups to
accomplish objective

Participates in instructionally-appropriate moderate to
vigorous physical activity for at least 50% of a structured
physical education class

Demonstrates the ability to share, be cooperative and safe
with others

His
report card reflected that he needed improvement in the
following areas:

Social/Group/Work Skills

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.